This article is an answer to "Competition Is Not Good" by Kroc and reading it wouldn't be comfortable without switching to and from the original article. I wrote it just because I do strongly disagree with Kroc and I believe I can prove that he is not as close to truth as it may seem from the first glance.

"More recent examples are WorldCom and Enron. Both companies where working in recently deregulated industries and anybody can tell you what happened there in more detail than this post allows for."

Interesting that you would choose to cite Enron as an example. One only needs to study a little of Enron's history to see how they completely gamed California's system of regulation. While remaining completely legal I might add.

The dark history of Enron is an argument *for* allowing the straight-forward approach of the market forces to decide who to punish and who to reward. In the case of California, it was the state's attempts to regulate energy prices that were an early enabler of Enron's behavior. Now, I'm not arguing against government regulation, but I am suggesting that there's a balance to strike between regulation and the market forces. Leaning toward the latter. I'm not an expert on the subject by any means. I'm simply pointing out that there's arguments for and against both.